The LEFT and racists don't tolerate "freedom of Speech" from anybody else for their cause ONLY...

12:58 pm October 9, 2012

URNSO2 wrote:

BIGOTS can stand free thinkers.

1:15 pm October 9, 2012

Ken wrote:

Vote for Romney. The only douche for your future.

1:22 pm October 9, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

if romney had 0% support ab ong b lacks, why does obama have support among whites?

1:25 pm October 9, 2012

avlisk wrote:

This is why I'm not a Lib/Dem. . .I can't ally myself with the racist hypocrites who make up that side of the political spectrum.

1:26 pm October 9, 2012

pete wrote:

publicity stunt ...

1:43 pm October 9, 2012

Mike Johnson wrote:

Why should it surprise anyone that blacks viciously attack anyone who chooses to escape from the Democrat plantation? Have you never heard of Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Alan West, Thomas Sowell, Colin Powell, Michael Steele, etc.? Stacy Dash can be proud to be in the company of such truly liberated independent thinkers.

The Democrat party would cease to exist without its relentless hate mongering. Black bigots serve as their useful idiots in this cause.

1:53 pm October 9, 2012

texasoil wrote:

I am in my 50s. Grew up in a small well to do suburb outside of Dallas in the 70s. We had a few blacks in our school. They where mostly accept but but there a few that didn't like it. It bother most when those few would talk trash. The many would just look the other way when the trash talking start even though it bother them. I know I was one. Two of mt best friends where black but we stuck to our own group when in school. And that was wrong.
But times have change and I am proud of it. I stil live in that suburb of which is still 67% white. I have many neighbors of which are different races including blacks. They are doctors. Lawyers, Business owners of which belong to both parties.
We have Barbqs together. Our kids play together. Go to school together. Play sports together.
We have came so far over the years lets not blow it just because some one is not voting like you feel they should.
Honor her for standing up to the bullies and expression her belief when so many wont.
Stand your ground girl because there are many out there in that position of ridicule if they speak out. You are one of the barrier breakers..

2:01 pm October 9, 2012

Jen DC wrote:

@ Mike Johnson: Curious that you are defending Stacy Dash while expounding the same sentiments leveled against her. I am a Democrat because I'm a social liberal and that Party best expresses those political goals. It's a well-thought out position that doesn't rely SOLELY on the latest history of the Democratic Party as the party of civil rights, etc. I have a well-rounded knowledge of not only our shared American history, but of political history and current events.

Both parties have racists. It's false and disingenuous to pretend that the Republican Party, the party of the "Southern Strategy," the party in which more than half its supporters don't believe the President is (a) a citizen and (b) a Christian and who routinely express the idea that minorities vote Democratic for "the get" is somehow welcoming, because it's not. The pictures of the Republican Convention spoke volumes to me, i.e., WHERE ARE THE BROWN FACES?

2:07 pm October 9, 2012

Jerry wrote:

It is interesting to read how some beleive the Democrat Party to be the "party of civil rights (sic) given that the Republican Party ended slavery while the Democrats fought to maintain it. Additionally the Democrat Party was the party of George Wallace and Bull Connor - so, really?

3:14 pm October 9, 2012

Todd Dyer Crawford wrote:

Stacy, I could care less about your politics or anybody else’s for that matter we are all Americans. I do believe we need leadership in the White House and we have been lacking that for far too long now. With that said,…
I have fought in Iraq on 3 deployments since 2004, 4 if you count 91. I have also served in many other places in order to secure our national security, including Panama and Korea. Anytime I have knowingly ventured into harms way, YOU are who I was fighting for, you INCREDIBLY BEAUTIFUL woman. Thanks to you and all of the BEAUTIFUL AMERICAN women for giving me a cause worthy of fighting and if necessary dieing for. GOD BLESS AMERICA and all of her BEAUTIFUL daughters,….. God Bless you Stacey,… you wonderful, BEAUTIFUL girl!!!!

3:21 pm October 9, 2012

SMSgt. Ed Bard wrote:

Todd Crawford you nailed it. I served in Iraq in 2007 for the same reason. Stacy Dash way to standup in that Hollywood crowd and speak you mind.

3:29 pm October 9, 2012

GRIZZ MANN wrote:

Isn't Democrat racism a wonder? Obama ended race bigotry with his election, didn't he? NO, he used division on all America, poor against rich, unions against shareholders of GM/

3:29 pm October 9, 2012

Dr. Rusty Nails wrote:

@Jen DC: Mike Johnson is all too correct. How is it Obama garnered 90%+ of the ballots cast by black voters? Either they were motivated by race or by the tenets of the Democrat Party. Considering the overall turnout amongst blacks in 2008 versus prior elections, it's easy to discern what their motivation was. Wasn't the first time a male democrat ran for president...hmm, I wonder what it could be?

The facts are the facts, blacks who diverge from the accepted, black party line are labeled sell outs, Uncle Toms and traitors. Just look at the Twitter fall out from Nicki Minaj's verse about supporting Romney. She was called vile, unrepeatable things and people called for her death and said she should kill herself. Mind you, this is coming from people who would have previously claimed to love her. Why? Because they believed her to be supporting someone they feel a black person shouldn't be supporting...plain and simple.

Outside of that, the Republican Party was the first party to fight (and died) to support the rights of blacks in this country. Even in recent history the Democrat party has been the party of racially motivated hatred. Robert Byrd, J. William Fulbright, Al Gore Sr., Lyndon Johnson, Herman Talmadge, Richard Russell Jr., Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, George Wallace and Bull Connor come to mind. Civil Rights? Glad you asked. Did you know that 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it?

If you are looking for 'brown faces' you should consider watching the program instead of checking out 'pictures'. Just look at the line up of speakers at the RNC: Quico Canseco, Tim Scott, Mia Love, Ted Cruz, Artur Davis, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Luis Fortuno, Condoleezza Rice, Susana Martinez, Marco Rubio, among others. Let's see what the DNC gave us...an illegal alien, some movie stars, a 30 year old law school student that can't afford her own contraceptives, a bankruptcy lawyer that thinks she is Native American, etc.

Tell you what, you can have the DNC all to yourself if you just keep away from my old, white, un-progressive party.

3:32 pm October 9, 2012

sue wrote:

ou go girl! go romney! i can not afford any more obama

3:34 pm October 9, 2012

sue wrote:

you go girl! go romney! i can not afford any more obama

4:39 pm October 9, 2012

Jen DC wrote:

@ Dr Rusty Nails: You are adding no new issues to the argument. I have admitted that there are racists on both sides of the aisle. So... what? Do I doubt that the high percentage of black votes cast for Obama were in some way motivated by making history? Not at all. But that's not what we're arguing here. We're arguing that blacks (and by extension, other minorities) ONLY vote by race. That is a lie.

Your "Republicans are actually the party of civil rights" argument is exactly why I included the fact that I'm well-versed in political history of this country. The platforms of the parties as they now stand are completely opposed to where they were in the '60s, which is when they flipped: Democrats became Republicans, and Republicans became Democrats. Did Republicans of '64 pass the Civil Rights Act? They sure did. But look at the Republican candidate for the presidency of '64, Barry Goldwater: Proudly ran on the fact that he voted *AGAINST* the Civil Rights Act. He wasn't just some candidate for the Republicans; he was the *nominee the same year the Act was passed.*

I really need Republicans to be able to hold these two ideas in their heads simultaneously: That politcal parties shift ideologies; and the ideologies of the parties of the '60s are not the same ideologies they are expounding today. That way, you guys will stop trying to convince black people that the Republican Party today is somehow analogous to the party of the same name of the '60s. It is not.

Actually, I watched the Convention, at length. Yes, I saw many, many brown faces on stage... yet none in the crowd. Any presidential campaign communications team can trot out sufficient minority surrogates to do spots and make a stage looking multicultural; but that's impossible to achieve in a crowd. Hence my "look at the picture [the Republican Convention made]."

4:50 pm October 9, 2012

Jen DC wrote:

Oh, and another thing: It's always interesting to me that non-blacks pay attention when there is discord within the black community... when no community is monolithic. Every race and ethnicity has its own internal stresses, cultural landmines, etc. I find the outside-the-community interest in this odd and off-putting, not because I think blacks have anything to hide, but because, as usual, the attention seems to include the underlying inference that black people are somehow "different" and that the issues we face aren't "mainstream." It's just plain weird.

5:11 pm October 9, 2012

Lee wrote:

She's entitled to her opinion and so am I. Poor thing is still clueless!

5:22 pm October 9, 2012

Jen wrote:

Wow! I may disagree 100% with her political opinion, but people died for her - for our - right to have one. Can't we respect that she stated her views plainly, without the need for insult to the other party? Isn't that what civil discourse IS? I can't understand people who name call and attack someone for having the opposite opinion - and I don't see this kind of outraged backlash against the numerous celebrities who come out in support of Obama.

I give as much respect to someone who believes that Romney is right for this country as I would expect others to give me in regard to my support of Obama. Live the Golden Rule, people.

5:24 pm October 9, 2012

Dr. Rusty Nails wrote:

@Jen DC: I reiterated the point because you haven't seem to grasp the concept. All of those racists/Klan member/segregationists/etc. that I listed were and ARE Democrats. I find it comforting that you've taken the time to try and learn the issue but might I suggest reinterpreting what you already read in an accurate manner or, perhaps, buying a history book that isn't broken?

The 'switch' didn't occur as you claim, that is easily found and verified. The Dixiecrats didn't become Republicans and the Republicans didn't become Democrats. The Republican party has been the champion of black civil rights since that one guy...uh, what was his name? Oh yeah, Abraham Lincoln. Any idea what party he was affiliated with?

And maybe I missed the part about 'only'...where is that at? What I said is that race was a tremendous factor (again, not 'only') in Obama's capturing of 90%+ of the black vote. Mike Johnson pointed out the hypocrisy from party members that camp under the banner of acceptance and diversity. So you are arguing with yourself.

It's your party, not mine, that panders to the race baiters and fear mongers. "Put y'all back in chains" would be just one example. Beyond that, there's the title of 'bigot' for anyone that disagrees with the president, regardless of the topic of the disagreement or the content of the argument being made.

The current administration should be embarrassed about its failings and I wholly believe the president is an empty suit. Just think back a week to the first debate. Why was Obama standing there quietly, smirk plastered to his face? Because he has no rebuttal for his failed policies. There are no excuses so he has no response. Unfortunately for him, the economy and domestic issues are, by many measures, his greatest 'success'.

If you think the last debate went poorly for the left, wait until the next, and more specifically the third one (strictly about foreign affairs), when Romney will take Obama to the mat on the cluster that is occurring overseas. Burned embassies/consulates? Check. American flags torn down, burned and al-Qaeda flags flown in its place over sovereign US soil? Check. Dead ambassador and security personnel? Check. Advanced warning but failure to prevent attack? Check. Iran closer to developing nuclear weapons than ever before? Check. Meek, apologetic speech at the UN that didn't draw a line in the sand for Iran? Check

Obama's foreign policy sure has accomplished a lot but after looking at that checklist, I don't suspect it will be anything Obama will want to take credit for.

Trot out? Did the RNC spend the last few decades orchestrating the rise of minority (race, gender & religion) leaders in the Republican party from all around the country just so it could 'trot' a few of them out and make the stage look multicultural?!? The minorities that spoke at the RNC this year are prominent members of their communities and, in many cases, hold the highest offices in their respective towns, cities, states, territories and organizations. Don't diminish their incredible achievements so you can build a false narrative.

As for 'brown faces' in the crowd...well, that says more about the potential crowd than it does the party.

5:33 pm October 9, 2012

Dr. Rusty Nails wrote:

@Jen DC: As for your post script...the major difference with the black community vs. any other is the sheer amount of destructive behavior, primarily violent crime. Just look at the murder rates in predominantly black communities.

And maybe you don't like people standing on the outside looking in, but you should be screaming for more people to do just that. The fact is, the greatest victim of black crime are other blacks, typically the peaceful, noncriminal, youths that become targets in the crossfire.

Just look at the 'stop and frisk' policy that has been implemented in NYC to find illegal handguns. Ironically it's being litigated in court for being a racist law but the facts bear out that black-on-black violent crime has significantly diminished since it's implementation.

5:44 pm October 9, 2012

JCB wrote:

Barry Goldwater was a Republican that voted against the civil rights act, but George Wallace was a Democrat and had a huge Democrat following. Which way does the Tea Party lean----to Liberty, FREEDOM, and tolerance. The conservative does not try to force their opinion or beliefs on the left, but the liberals try to force their beliefs onto the conservative. I could write or talk on this for hours, but most left wingers would not listen for more than a few seconds before they would try to shout my opinions down.

5:47 pm October 9, 2012

bob wrote:

go Stacy

5:48 pm October 9, 2012

paul weiss wrote:

Stacey, Keep up the good work for Romney.!!!!!!!! Gods on your side.!!

5:49 pm October 9, 2012

Jen wrote:

@JCB - the only reason I would stop listening to you isn't that I'm a liberal, but that you're making broad, sweeping generalizations about your party and mine that are insulting. I will listen to anyone with a well-thought out view, whether I agree with them or not. It's called critical thinking, and I wish more people would try it.

5:52 pm October 9, 2012

Jen wrote:

I give up on this forum. Last time I looked, God didn't take a side - that's disgusting. It's no use arguing with people who are whipped into this much of a frenzy, so I think I'm going to go somewhere more reasonable - like a kindergarten playground.

9:34 pm October 9, 2012

deonne anderson wrote:

Stacey dash is entitled to vote for whomever she chooses. However it was clear to me during her interview with Piers Morgan that she is not well informed nor does she have the ability to express her feelings or beliefs in an intelligent manner. I suggust that you get out your lap top and type in "republican obstructionism of Obama." You are not well informed and have fed into the propaganda created by the Republican Party to ensure that people like you see Obama as you do.

If Mitt Romnwy was such a great Govenor of Massachusetts, why did he serve only one term? I suggest that you do some research before joining any band wagon. Become informed!

9:47 pm October 9, 2012

werren wrote:

stacys carear has been going down hill so she feel this will get her some points out there with the big wigs on the right but if you can't act you can't act mybe you need to get with tyler perry real people don't sale your self short

10:46 pm October 9, 2012

Muffy wrote:

Black people telling other black people what they should do or it's their ass is pretty ironic.

10:48 pm October 9, 2012

Bill wrote:

Brave girl! Let's face it, if someone sucks at a job they get fired. Would you keep your 401k money with the same person if they continued to lose your money? NO, you would replace them. This has NOTHING to do about race! This President has hurt my country. I was an American LONG before I chose a political party. Let's send a meessage,,,it's not a popularity contest. If you suck at the job, YOU WILL BE REPLACED! Thank you Stacey for standing up for your 1st amendment right. BTW, MLK was a Republican. God Bless =-)

12:28 am October 10, 2012

Jean wrote:

Dr. Rusty Nails, you level of ignorance was painful to read, and I'm not even a Republican nor am I white. You did not make a single statement that is factual. That's just plain pathetic. I certainly hope you are not a U.S. citizen, and I can't believe that any reputable college granted you a degree (no less more than one)--in any field of study.

Frankly, I don't blame Jen for walking away in disgust from a discussion with you. You comments are ludicrous. For example, you wrote:

". . . the major difference with the black community vs. any other is the sheer amount of destructive behavior, primarily violent crime. Just look at the murder rates in predominantly black communities."

Really? I suppose the mafia got its reputation by exhibiting exemplary behavior.

The truth is, my feeble-minded friend, poverty and the lack of access to opportunities (perceived or real) is the primary cause of violent inner-city crime. Here is an excerpt from a recent study conducted in Columbus, Ohio.

"violent crime rates in extremely disadvantaged white neighborhoods were very similar to rates in comparable Black neighborhoods.

The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities.

There are still many people who mistakenly believe there is something about Black neighborhoods that make them more violent and prone to crime, said Lauren Krivo, co-author of the study and associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University.

Our research shows that neighborhoods with the most crime tend to be those with the highest rates of poverty and other types of disadvantage -- regardless of whether they are predominantly Black or white."

The results of that Ohio study merely reaffirm what thoughtful, intelligent people have long believed to be true. Moreover, similar studies have been conducted for decades, and the results always yield the same fundamental conclusions.

New York's "stop and frisk" practices may indeed be illegal and racist. In this country, stopping and frisking an individual without probable cause is a violation of that individual's civil rights. If a significantly disproportionate number of individuals who are subjected to that practice belong to the same racial group, how that policy is practiced may indeed be racist.

As for your knowledge of the historical differences between the Republican and the Democratic party, you are clearly way out of your league.

Finally, very few black people could give a flying cow about who Stacy Dash votes for in November. By the way, who is Stacy Dash? LOL Before today, I had never heard of her.

12:55 am October 10, 2012

dee wrote:

Stacey probably got a wad of cash for her endorsement. Wonder if she even reads the papers or knows who the candidates are.

12:58 am October 10, 2012

dee wrote:

She and Nicky Minaj are both clueless ,yet entitled to their opinions. Must feel nice being able to come out in support of someone who thinks 47% of Americans are victims.

1:08 am October 10, 2012

Jean wrote:

@Bill, it would appear that there are quite a few Republicans whose memory of recent years is as short and selective as yours apparently is.

"If you suck at the job, YOU WILL BE REPLACED!" One can only wonder if you put your vote in 2004 where your mouth is now. Is that the message you sent to Bush in 2004 when it was quite clear that he was creating the financial mess that Obama is now cleaning up? And what about the Republican-controlled Congress? Perhaps you should consider applying that dictum to it.

3:58 am October 10, 2012

wes wrote:

Jen Gave up Because shes not open to "real" discourse, Jean Just likes to Talk...

4:01 am October 10, 2012

nigel wrote:

@ Jean, so what did Bush actually do to to enable this finacial mess? I can always say that it was Clintons deregulation that started this as well but im sure you already knew that. Continue to cherry pick

4:04 am October 10, 2012

Jeff D. wrote:

So Sad, this young lady does not research history. She is so willing to put her support behind a man who turned his back on his country four times, when called to serve in South East Asia! While young men and women (Brown, Native American, African American, and of other Countries.) stepped up and gave their limbs, and lives to serve a country that had little respect for them. I have "Poor, Under educated uncles, and cousins who gave their lives, and are living today with wounds (lead & mental) from the Vietnam Conflict. I served 20 years (Active & Reserve) Air Force, and supported conflicts and wars,from the recovery of Jones Town, Guyana, Iran Hostages, Operation Just Cause, Desert Shield & Storm.
While Mr. Romney, and Ms. Dash are out making as much money as they can, we have now, and always had people in harms way, ensuring they can safely do so! The Romney family has a long history of avoiding U.S. Military Service, from W. Romney, Sr. to the Five sons of Gov. & Mrs. Romney. (Prince Charles,& sons William and Harry served in their country's Military, in Combat Zones!)
Please, go visit a military hospital, and meet some True American Leaders & Heros! Life's not all about who can put you in a position to make the most Money!!!

7:53 am October 10, 2012

rico richardson wrote:

this is America and everyone is entitled to their opinion(s)...however, i was shocked to hear the shaky rationale ms. dash oralized on tv last night...her thinking reminded me of a pre-adolescent - - not very coherent or thoughtful...she is entitled to support mr. romney and i and entitled to BOYCOTT her movies, etc.

8:45 am October 10, 2012

pocketnunu wrote:

Some think Stacy's "clueless" and say she should get informed. It's not about her information, it's about her skin color. If she were lily white, nothing would be said. But the worst vitriol came from blacks and others -- all whom espouse tolerance -- who urged her to do away with herself. They played the race card on one of their "own."

Stay strong, Stacy Dash.

9:45 am October 10, 2012

Lassi wrote:

In America you may vote for whomever you please and you can change party affiliation or vote across too.
The very pretty Dash is being targeted by irrational group think and useful idiots who really do not have a clue of why they're attacking her.
Black on black voter thuggery is shameful behavior!
The blame lies with those corrupt leaders who cause divisions and manipulate certain groups as leverage for their lofty goal$, ambition and personal gain.

10:08 am October 10, 2012

LMA wrote:

Todd Crawford and SMSgt. Ed Bard -- you two fought for "beautiful women"?! Thank G-d my husband and those alongside him fought in Afghanistan for higher, more dignified reasons.

11:03 am October 10, 2012

Ed T. wrote:

To Jeff D., I suppose Mr. Obama has served his country, militarily? Are you an imbecile or what?

11:52 am October 10, 2012

Jean wrote:

@nigel, you and I both know that if a Democrat had occupied the White House from 2000 to 2008, you would not have asked that question. When Bill Clinton took over the White House after Republican President George H. W. Bush, the U.S. economy was in financial crisis, unemployment was already high and climbing, and the crime rate was soaring. When Bill Clinton left the White House, the U.S. economy was so strong and vibrant that some economists were beginning to worry about OUR LACK OF DEBT.

Clinton handed the White House over to Republican President George W. Bush in January 1995, and when Bush left the White House the country was on the brink of a depression, and you have the audacity to ask a question like that?

PBS's televised program and transcript "The Legacy of the Clinton Administration" sums up the picture quite well:

"When Clinton assumed the presidency in January 1993, the U.S. economy was reeling from a second wave of recessions following an unprecedented stock collapse in the late 1980s, a savings-and-loan crisis that saw several bank failures, and an oil-price spike resulting from Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. U.S. poverty and crime rates were climbing. Clinton promised both job growth and a reduction in the national debt: "We must do what America does best --" he declared in his inaugural address"-- offer more opportunity to all and demand more responsibility from all."

Clinton's economic strategy focused on fiscal discipline; investment in education, healthcare, and technology; and opening foreign markets. Over strong Republican opposition, the Clinton administration passed budgets that combined tax increases on the wealthy with government spending cuts, achieving the largest budget surpluses and debt reduction in U.S. history by 2000. Poverty levels fell, more than 20 million jobs were created, and unemployment rates consistently decreased over his two terms in office, reaching their lowest levels since the 1960s."

11:57 am October 10, 2012

Dr. Rusty Nails wrote:

@Jean: I do appreciate your clarification that you aren't a Republican, but it's wholly unnecessary to point that out when you lead with an insult (typical liberal tactic).

As far as your super awesome quote...again, I applaud your effort and give your credit for trying. First and foremost, know that your denial of the truth doesn't better you, the community or the country, so the sooner you read through the real, sobering facts, the better you will be.

Second, your quote was from a study that was published in 1997...so, I would really, really, really hesitate to say "recent". And, if that wasn't bad enough, the source data used in the analysis was derived from the crime rates from 1989 through 1991. So...outdated, to say the least. Also the data was taken from just a few neighborhoods in just one city...which, by any measure, doesn't really meet the lowest stand of sampling size for any sort of actual scientifically accurate analysis.

If you are actually interested in educating yourself and to those that have been privy to this discussion and wish to further educate themselves, simply go to Google and search "Shocking Data on Black-on-Black Crime". There is an article, done by The Blaze, that actually walks through numbers that were derived from data that was collected after VHS tapes went out of style...that is to say, this data is much more recent, and accurate, than the stuff that Jean is referencing.

12:09 pm October 10, 2012

Dr. Rusty Nails wrote:

@dee: Stacy clearly knows at least one of the candidates because she referenced him in her Tweet, which is what this entire article is about. And do you have any proof that she got paid for her Tweet or is that purely conjecture? Maybe you read it in 'the papers'?

Also, it's ironic that you called Nicki Minaj clueless because she doesn't actually support Mitt Romney, it was just a joke in a song. Is she still clueless now that you know she supports Obama, or is she an educated voter now?

12:19 pm October 10, 2012

Lemons wrote:

She might be mixed race but she is mixed race with a job and supporting herself. She don't have to beg for a living so she can vote for Romney. I am proud she is not into begger economics.

Besides, for now we are still free to vote however we want - we have no idea how much longer that will last.

12:36 pm October 10, 2012

Carl wrote:

Anyone who votes AGAINST Barack Obama because he is black is racist.
Anyone who votes FOR Barack Obama because he is black is racist.
Voting is a great priviege and should never be reduced to a contest of popularity, appearance, or membership in one group or another (i.e., religion, party, clique, etc.). Vote for the person you think will make the best president based on their character, what they will do as president, and where they will lead the country.
.

12:38 pm October 10, 2012

Jean wrote:

@ Lassi, one would think that you, @ pocketnunu, and a number of other people who have commented here have never heard the term "voting bloc." It's not as if voting blocs are new or uncommon. Most people tend to vote with the voting bloc that they share the most in common with and which represents their interests best. For Dash, Republicans are that group--which makes her one of many atypical black American.

Here a definition:

"A voting bloc is a group of voters that are strongly motivated by a specific common concern or group of concerns to the point that such specific concerns tend to dominate their voting patterns, causing them vote together in elections.For example, Beliefnet identifies 12 main religious blocs in American politics, including e.g. the "Religious Right", whose concerns are dominated by religious and sociocultural issues and "White Bread Protestants", who, while also conservative, tend to care more about economic issues. The result is that each of these groups votes en bloc in elections." (Wikipedia)

Whenever the U.S. economy turns sour, black Americans suffer first, most, and longest. Therefore, when a black person chooses to vote for a party that is not likely to have any real interest in their financial future, it is not surprising that a few black people would be unhappy with Stacey Dash. Nevertheless, we all know that she will continue to vote for whomever she wants to vote for, because that is her right.

12:46 pm October 10, 2012

Tiredofstupidpeople wrote:

Stacey Dash is clueless as all get out and does not know the first thing about Romney,Mormonism and what is going on politically! She has been naked more times than anyone can count in magazines and Mitt would shun her for real, just based on that, much less being Black and Hispanic! She is an idiot to endorse him,and she displayed that on Piers Morgan....she described Romney as the candidate of opportunity...er NO. And she is NOT employed,the people typing that show they do not know anything about her when they posted that! She is just trying to get a Playboy cover now that she is not featured on King Magazine nowadays....she remains clueless!

1:01 pm October 10, 2012

Jean wrote:

@Dr. Rusty Nails, I saw your comment to me. What are you babbling about now? Don't you have a job to do, or are you one of the casualties of the Bush administration? I'll read your comment this evening, after work, and respond then.

1:12 pm October 10, 2012

Joel wrote:

Wow, 94% of blacks support obama (not surprisng). 0% support Romney, again not surprising. Where is the remaining 6%? Either affraid to voice support for the white man, or affraid to voice supoprt for the black man for fear their opinion might be construed as racially motivated.

The truth of the matter is that blacks are voting for Obama because of race. Yes, his leftist socialistic policies are also a reason, but we have had socialists before as presidential candidates, and they didn't show up at the polls (not like they showed for O). You can say what you want in your politically correct discourse. I have asked a few of them, both when my wife was in the unemployment rolls, and back when we were on federal assistance programs (not anymore, thank God). Even people in school, work. MOst of them had never voted before, were older than 30 (which means they could have voted for at least3 precidential cycles, yet they voted in 08 and plan to do so now again, only because of Obama. if he wins again, they might even say he needs to run for a 3rd term (like Chaves) and argue the Messiah should be exempt of the two term limit. Complete reverse racism, which is OK, cus we were oppresed, remember. (yes I am 50% black).

1:33 pm October 10, 2012

Dr. Rusty Nails wrote:

@Jean: Again with the negative comment and personal attacks. Is that a common trait in your voting bloc?

Also, please remember to thank the 1%'er that employs you and not the 47% that accept the money the government takes from your paycheck! Have a great day at work!

2:05 pm October 10, 2012

Jean wrote:

@Joel, which 50 percent of you is black, and which 50 percent of you is something else? I am an infinitely curious person by nature, so I'm just asking.

Incidentally, like the vast majority of black Americans, I would NOT have voted for Herman Cain under any circumstance that I can imagine. Idiots come in all shapes, sizes, and colors--and he is clearly one of them. In 2011, large numbers of black Chicago voters refused to vote for Carol Moseley Braun (a black candidate) and went to the polls and voted for Rahm Emanuel, who won with 55 percent of the votes. Most black Americans detest Justice Clarence Thomas and consider him to be another absolute idiot. If it were up to us, he certainly would not be sitting on the Supreme Court. As with President Obama, for black Americans the fundamental issue is not the color of his skin, it's the values and political position he represents.

Why go all the way to South American looking for a candidate who was able to successfully argue that the rules should be set aside in his case and that he should be granted a third term? Isn't that what New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was successfully able to do? How would that lend any credence to your racism claim?

3:09 pm October 10, 2012

Jen DC wrote:

No, I stopped because I realize the futility of arguing political history and politics generally with someone who wholly and and completely swallows the race-baiting party line now drawn by today's Republican Party.

I apologize if my quick and dirty analysis of the 40+ year-long shift in political ideology was insufficiently clear for you, but essentially my point stands: It is not your grandfather's Republican Party. And again, both parties harbor racists; hell, the whole country harbors racists, but that is not going to induce me to change political parties to support a platform that utterly and completely debases and disrespects my sex (female) my race/ethnicity (black) and my socioeconomic standing (lower middle class). In order to fully participate in the electoral process, I have few actionable choices: Not to vote, which is untenable to me; to vote Republican (ditto); vote Independent/Green/Communist/Socicalist (ditto); structure, market and fund my own party (ugh); or vote Democratic (my choice).

All the racist Democrats you listed ARE DEAD. Two of them renounced their racist pasts. So not only are they NOT POLITICALLY VIABLE (as they are dead), I'm going to take the two who renounced at their word and claim that all of them, at the end of their lives, weren't even racist. Try listing living racist Democrats. And please stop relying on the Republican bona fides older than 20 years because again, THAT IS NOT TODAY'S REPUBLICAN PARTY. Today's Republican Party members - at least two at last count - asserted that blacks were better off during slavery: Michele Bachmann (who also believes you can subvert someone's sexuality) and John Hubbard.

RE: "Put y'all back in chains." OH EM GEE. First of all, you don't get to be an arbiter of what is racist for another ethnicity. Period. Secondly, it was a mixed race crowd. A mixed race crowd that laughed. Moving on...

Foreign policy debate? Well, even if you perceive it as a failed foreign policy, at least the President has experience. There are competing stories with regard to the advance warning prior to the Libyan embassy attack; much like there were competing stories with regard to the advance warning re: 9/11. Should this President be held to a higher or the same standard? Because if it's the same standard, three people killed (not incl'ing protection detail) versus 3,000? (Also not including those soldiers lost in the ongoing actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, of course.) I'm interested in hearing what Romney has to say with regard to foreign policy, but I don't think a debate is the best way to share your foreign policy platform with the general public.

What else, what else...? Oh, if this is the extent of the minority leadership the Republican Party has been incubating for the last 20 years, that's pathetic, particularly since one of them - Artur Davis - was a Democrat up until 2.5 years ago. I'm not downplaying their "incredible achievements" at all - I'm downplaying the Republican Party's attempt to look multicultural.

But in looking more closely at the people you named... One is suspected of being an "anchor baby," (just saying it is suspected, BY OTHERS, NOT MYSELF, because I don't care whether she is or not); both Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal have done something I personally find... troubling, which is anglicizing their names (or using an English middle name); and the others are part of the largest growing, possibly majority minority in the country - Latinos - thus SHOULD have greater representation at the federal level than they currently enjoy. So, yeah, what else could the Republican Party do at their convention other than attempt to prove that there are a significant number of minorities in the Party, thereby "proving" the Party is welcoming?

My point with regard to the Convention crowd is this: If you can't draw minority supporters to the Convention, which is the largest organized gathering of the foot soldiers of the Party, it says that your Party is in trouble. It says that your platform isn't compelling to minorities, that they can't find themselves or their interests represented therein. The fact that you believe it speaks more to the crowd than to the Party and its platform is EXACTLY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'S PROBLEM. But hey, far be it from me to help you out of the hole your Party is digging with your help...

3:13 pm October 10, 2012

Dr. Rusty Nails wrote:

@Joel: You are certainly right, at least to some extent. I don't know if you caught the 'interviews' that Howard Stern played on his show at some point over the last week or two, but I read about them online and thought I should check them out. While I have to admit the people in the audio aren't representative of all black Americans, it becomes readily apparent they support (and possibly vote for) Obama simply because he is black and/or because they feel he will take care of them.

The gist of the interviews was to simply show that people have zero command of the issues at hand. They asked the people fake questions like, "Do you think Obama being Mormon is a problem?", "Do you think Obama picked Paul Ryan, an African American running mate, because of his race?", "Do you think Obama will eventually find and kill Usama bin Laden?", "Do you like Obama because he's pro-life?", "Do you support Romney because he's black?".

It's several minutes of people who plan to vote for Obama but they don't even know that bin Laden is already dead! So how can someone argue that they are voting on issues when they don't even know what the issues are, who the challenger is, etc? Just Google 'Howard Stern Interviews Obama Supporters".

3:39 pm October 10, 2012

Jen DC wrote:

BTW, update on Romney's Middle East plan: "[S]o what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it."

Taken from the now infamous 47% video and released by Mother Jones.

4:33 pm October 10, 2012

Dr. Rusty Nails wrote:

@Jen DC: You find voting for the Republican party as untenable but have the audacity to say that I wholly and and completely swallow the party line?!?! Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot.

So you've decided to stick with the Democrat party because you feel they have less racists? It's odd that you would take someone's words (Bachmann and Hubbard), out of context, and damn an entire party while siding with a party that has murdered and tortured people of your own race. To each their own.

If you want, you can list Thomas Sowell on the list of Conservative racists because he feels black people were better off before the Civil Rights movement, Affirmative Action and the creation of a national minimum wage. He must absolutely hate black people, after all, every single one of those programs are supposed to help disadvantaged blacks.

And I most certainly can be an arbiter of what is and isn't racist, mostly because I can read and understand the definition of racism and aptly apply the label where I see fit...and I can do all of that regardless of the color of skin!

What do you mean the president has experience? Did you not vote for Obama in 2008 because McCain had a far greater amount of foreign policy experience? That's rhetorical, no need to answer. And Romney has organized and lead businesses that have operated internationally and I have the utmost of confidence that he will continue to succeed. At least he brings that experience to the table while the current president hasn't so much as run a lemonade stand but currently holds the keys to the world's largest economy. Sounds like a recipe for success, huh?

And there aren't conflicting stories about the embassy attacks, just the truth and what the administration has coped to. As we've seen in the weeks following the terrorist attacks, the White House has walked back what they say happened, the impetus for the whole incident, etc. At any rate, there were more than half a dozen attacks at that consulate, reports that the ambassador feared for his life and recent, credible reports that there were requests to increase security at the location that were denied.

It's precisely because we lost 3,000 people on 9/11 that Obama should be held to a higher standard. And let's be clear, GW Bush will always have those deaths and the deaths and injuries of the soldiers that sacrificed so much hanging around his neck...and anybody will to look can easily see that weighs heavy on his heart. Even after leaving office Bush has been known to show up at airports and welcome soldiers home, no press conference, no media, no recognition, just him offering a sincere handshake and warm 'Thank You'.

We know there are threats to our safety and America's interests abroad but the Obama administration outright denies that. The Obama administration say al-Qaeda is retreating, but the recent events in Libya would say otherwise.

If you are interested in hearing what Romney has to say about foreign policy, then go look up the speech he gave earlier this week, it's very insightful and outlines, much as I have, the tremendous failures of the current administration.

So you found one person out of the entire list of mayors, governors, senators and congressmen that was a convert? You should look closer and you will find more. I do find it noteworthy that you would discount their achievements, regardless of where they came from, by implying they are pawns of the RNC. At any rate, I would love to see your party's list. If you want chat about the use of minorities to project an image, we can talk about the how woman in the White House actually get paid 18% less than men or how some are promoted to positions of authority but have described the work environment as 'hostile' and explained that their ideas are often overlooked while in meetings, only to have a male repeat the same idea days later and receive wide support. You only have to look within one's house to see their true nature.

Pot v. Kettle: Not an accurate portrayal of our exchange at all. You are still vociferously defending a racist party, while I have admitted that both parties harbor racists. Etc, etc... Bored.

Fewer racists: Not what I asserted or implied. At all. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you honestly not comprehend what I've written? Which is this: REGARDLESS OF THE RACISTS WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY - which exist because they exist everywhere - I support the basic tenets of the Democratic platform. That's it. My personal views as a social liberal align me with the Ds, and I view that Party as the most viable option with regard to a legislative agenda that's going to get me closer to the society I want to see. It's called pragmatism. I don't actually need all racists excommunicated from either Party or from the country, for that matter, in order to feel a full participant in the governance of this country.

Damning the entire Party: Sir, it is clear to me now: You are being deliberately obtuse. Bachmann and Hubbard are examples of openly racist 21st century elected Republicans / Conservatives. Examples, if you will, of a greater acceptance of open racism in the Republican Party than currently exists in the Democratic Party. A rebuttal of your list of dead racist white male Democrats.

Recognizing racism: The problem here is that your example of racism doesn't exactly comport with the standard definition. There are some forms of overt racism that are obvious to all, and the matter that you raise is not one of those. You want to believe it is racist because it fits in with your "false narrative" of a racist Democratic Party. Bored.

Conflicting stories: There are, in fact, conflicting stories or, if you'd rather, conflicting interpretations of whether the data received was actionable, whether the decisions that followed receipt of the data were proper and whether alternatives to the decisions made existed, were logical, achievable and would have resulted in no loss of life. Otherwise, the panel investigating would not be discussing it.

Denying danger abroad: Um, when and where? Y'know, other than (allegedly) Libya? Links.

Foreign policy experience: The four years he garnered as president. In 2008 I did not much focus on foreign policy as much as I did on civil liberties. Did McCain have greater foreign policy experience? Yep. But I'm not a single issue voter. Weighing each of my priorities - excluding electing the first black president, because I didn't see that as reason enough to cast a vote in that direction - Obama won. Case closed.

GWB's heart: I don't give a damn about his heart. He can never feel badly enough for instigating a Middle East conflict with a dictator prior Republican administrations had created, using false evidence to do so. Don't even get me started on the history of the United States and Iraq. What a clusterf!ck. And we're recreating it right now in Afghanistan with Karzai. 20 years from now, Americans are going to be scratching their heads, wondering how we came to this... AGAIN.

Converts: You really have a difficult time focusing on conclusions. There are a few converts. The purpose of pointing on the fact that Davis is a recent convert was to refute your statement - at least take him out of it - that the Republican Party has been mentoring minorities for the last 20 years. Yeah, maybe the others you've listed... BUT NOT THAT ONE. I did not discount their achievements; I even stated that I did not and still don't. You can be accomplished, yet still be used. I didn't say they were being used unknowingly or ignorantly; most surrogates understand their purpose, particularly minority surrogates. Part of your individual cachet is the very fact that you are a successful minority. I mean, really: DUH. As far as pay in the White House, that pay disparity is better than what the rest of us suffer, which I believe hovers around 23%. You're making all these assertions but providing no source - no CREDIBLE SOURCE - for them. What women? In what leadership positions? Links. Plus... It's rich that you're sitting here discussing pay disparity when the Lilly Ledbetter Act vote WENT ALMOST PURELY BY PARTY LINES. (3 Rs, 4 Ds switched on the House side; 2 I's, and 5 Rs switched in the Senate.) Should the women in the White House receive equal pay for equal work? Yep. Now they have the means - legislative means - to fix it. No thanks to your Party. And let's not forget Todd "legitimate rape" Akin or Paul "forcible rape" Ryan (+225 co-signers). If I had to pick a team on support of women's rights alone - which I don't do, because I'm not a single issue voter - I would definitely pick the blue team. Everyday. And twice on Sunday. It's also hilarious to see you argue this after insulting Sandra Fluke and belittling her as seeking "free contraceptives." (Which... it just seems stupid to me to fight this. If the Republican Party wants fewer abortions, fewer children / families receiving government assistance... wouldn't you WANT FREE BC? I don't get it. Yeah yeah "government intrusion." So a forced ultrasound is the answer. BUT I DIGRESS.)

Something wrong with the Party: I don't actually think there's anything wrong with minority Republicans at all. If their perception is that that platform aligns with their interests - something that is entirely possible, since most black people I know are truly socially conservative - wonderful. But that's no where near my point (there's your trouble with conclusions again!). My point is this: The fact that there are few minority Republicans is a problem for the Republican Party. The platform is obviously unappealing to most of the soon-to-be minority majority. I am not suggesting that the Party compromise its positions; I'm merely pointing out the fact that reliance on a base that is 87% white is going to fail BY THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE OR TWO. Period. THAT'S THE HOLE. If I were a Republican strategist, I'd be thinking about that. HARD. Further, the Party is hampered by its racist history, post-60s, and keeps getting dinged by people like Bachmann and Hubbard who require rebutting from THEIR OWN TEAM.

I really need you to name LIVE minority Republicans. Frederick Douglass? Sojourner Truth? Harriet Tubman, Booker T...? Really? How hard is it for you to accept that the Republican Party of the 19th century isn't alive any more? That the things that made the Party great in the 1800s and early 1900s DIED by 1970? Choked off by 1980 by the Southern Strategy?

LOL at Michael Steele. Worst. Chairman. Ever. Herman Cain? More giggles. DON KING? Dig, boy. Allen West? A conspiracy theorist? Alan Keyes? All yours, and welcome. (I would mock these men whether they were white or black or Democrats because many of their stated views and/or their public personas are RIDICULOUS.)

11:05 pm October 10, 2012

Jean wrote:

@Dr. Rusty Nails, unlike you, it would appear, I avoid engaging in favoritism. For example, I am just as likely to point out the ignorant or racist comments of a Democrat or an Independent as I am to take issue with such comments when they are made by a Republican. Consequently, stating that I am not a Republican was, indeed, a necessary piece of information. That, sir, was implicit in my opening statements. Furthermore, as I indicated, it was your apparent level of human imperfection that I found painful.

When it comes to human behavior, I tend to think in terms of a historical perspective, so a study whose results were reported in 1997 (based upon what you said) isn't all that long ago. Moreover, the source I saw did not list the study's publication date. The study looked at data from a three-year period (from 1989 to 1991) in 177 census tracts, so it's rather absurd to claim that the sample size was too small and therefore produced "casual results." By the way, the study in question was published by Ohio State University. I am quite sure the researchers knew how to apply the scientific method.

Historically, within the white-American population there has long existed a segment of that population which is notorious for creating and perpetuating "social myths."

So, it would appear that you would like us to believe (a) that the findings of that particular study are merely an aberration or (b) that although white-on-white crime may have once been as significant and serious a problem as black-on-black crime, that is no longer the case.

Hmmm. In an earlier comment, you mentioned something about truth and "the real, sobering facts." Funny that you should bring that up in conjunction with crime. Throughout the day, as I work, I receive a steady stream of news reports. Take today, for example, which wasn't a particularly unusual news day. Two of the biggest news stories had to do with white-on-white crime. One news report was about Jerry Sandusky--you remember him, right--receiving 30 to 60 years for sexually molesting 10 boys over a period of years. (A separate, minor news report indicated that his victims would have to file civil suits against all of the people who knew that he was sexually molesting boys, but either remained silent or actively concealed what was happening.) The second big news story of the day was "1,900 Boy Scout Leaders Accused Of Child Sex Abuse."

When one also considers the number of scandals involving priests sexually abusing children, it would appear that when it comes to child sexual molestation alone, white-on-white crime is off the charts. Did I mention that I lived in northern Minnesota for over 25 years? One of the well-known, dirty little "secrets" there is how rampant incest is among the locals.

If I were you, I wouldn't attempt to waste any more of my time with your outrageously absurd myths. Now, just to make sure that we thoroughly understand each other--I will leave you with this article published July 18, 2009, in The Florida Times-Union.

White-on-White-Crime Is Destroying the Very Fabric of Our Nation
by Stanley Scott

White on white crime is destroying the very fabric of our nation and producing an entire class of white career criminals. While the media is quick to report every little statistic and/or event relating to the black on black crime phenomenon, the words “white on white crime” are spoken with a frequency of slim to none, and slim disappeared when he was two months old, murdered by his depressed mother, wrapped in plastic, and buried in the backyard.

Day in and day out we see the phenomenon of white crime in the news. A schizophrenic white mother kills her children because she thought that Jesus was talking to her through the can opener telling her she had to do it in order for them to make it to heaven. White kids arm themselves to the hilt with shotguns, assault rifles, and pistols in order to kill as many people as possible as part of their school project before they commit suicide. A couple of white guys who have spent a major portion of their lives in and out of jail are released and go to a posh neighborhood, murders a doctor’s wife and their two daughters and then sets the home on fire. A man holes himself up in a church one Sunday morning and starts trying to take out people who come to worship before being taken out by snipers. A white woman breaks into a home of the couple that adopts the baby that she surrendered to Child Protective Services. A wrestler murders his family before committing suicide himself. White people are too absorbed playing video games to feed their children. A white woman leaves her baby to die in the car left if the sun with the windows rolled tight because she wanted to get her hair done. White pedophiles attack little white children. White teachers have affairs with their ten year old students. Catholic ministers are assaulting their young parishioners. A white man commits treason and outs an American spy in order to score political points. All of these are instances of the always overlooked phenomenon of white on white crime.

Day after day our news bombards us with instances of crimes that receive local and national attention. Because white people in America are the dominating race rarely is the word white or European made in reference to a Caucasian that is the subject of a story. The anonymity of being the default keeps the fact that the phenomenon of white people committing crime as little more than a perchance event. Little stigma about their community as a whole is based on their individual actions. White people are given the benefit of the doubt that they are of good character and their integrity is above reproach unless or until proven otherwise. For many white people, even when they are proven to be of less than honorable character, people are still reluctant to perceive the criminal as a criminal. However, when the subject of the story is African, Hispanic, or some other ethnicity, the leap to the status of criminal is one very quick, short hop.

Indeed, many white people pay absolutely no attention to crime or other manifestations of less than decent behavior in their neighborhood until someone of another race arrives on the scene. Crime is a natural characteristic of people of color. In fact, William Bennett, who was the education secretary under Ronald Reagan, the drug czar under George Bush Sr. and a staunch Republican conservative, used his radio show to make the suggestion that if people wanted to reduce crime they could abort every black baby in the United States. However, although it might be reprehensible to some people and totally impossible to pull off, if one was truly interested in reducing crime to an even lower level here in the United States, all one has to do is abort every white baby and exterminate every white man and woman. But to seriously make such a suggestion invites ridicule, hatred, and possibly invoke the ire of some latent white criminals.

The white criminal mindset needs to quit hiding behind its generic veil of anonymity. If the various agencies that want to make sure people understand that people of color are committing crimes, then what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. White people need to be identified as contributors to the crime phenomenon at each and every time one of their clan makes their unfortunate choice. The term “white on white crime” needs to be bandied about at every applicable instance just as the term “black on black crime” is invoked in every applicable instance. Once we have the opportunity to be actively reminded of just how much the white on white crime happens in relation to its black on black crime counterpart. Chances are we would see that black on black crime isn’t as out of hand as a lot of people would like to make it appear. Black on black crime is a problem and it needs to be confronted. But the fraud that black people are somehow more naturally prone to be criminals more so than good wholesome white people needs to be exposed for the racial propaganda it really is.

11:26 pm October 10, 2012

brevity wrote:

1. They really need to limit the length of these comments.
2. How can any group be categorized as so nondiverse as many are doing in this comment section?
3. What has Barack Obama done for any minority groups, excluding the executive order keeping children of illegal immigrants in the US for 2 years? Please list 5 accomplishments.

6:29 am October 11, 2012

Jen DC wrote:

@ Jean: I found your study - it has been replicated multiple times since 1997, as recently as 2001, again in Ohio, specifically Cleveland. The study came to the same conclusions: It's not race - it's poverty and lack of opportunity. Crime rates in non-integrated, impoverished neighborhoods (+70% white/black) are statistically the same.

@ Dr Rusty Nails: Another elected (state level) Republican has come out and endorsed slavery. Loy Mauch, R-Bismarck. And please explain how Bachmann's and Hubbard's statements were taken out of context. Is there a context in which promoting slavery in any guise ok? Bachmann signed a document stating that slave families were more intact during slavery (blatant falsehood) - something recent Republicans have attempted to legislatively encourage, in connection with receiving government benefits. Hubbard claims that slavery was "a blessing for blacks," if by blessing you mean skipping over the nearly 250 years of brutally forced labor, rape, dismantling of families, lack of education, etc - much of which continued into the 1960s in the South under Jim Crow. Of course he claims "slavery was unjustified," but it's all ok, because otherwise blacks would still be in Africa and look what a mess *that* place is (due to what? You got it: Colonization, myriad wars brought on by the forced boundaries created by European nations subjugating and splitting up formerly tribally governed resources etc). If not for slavery and colonial interference, neither black folks nor Africa would be where they are now, no doubt. But we can't actually extrapolate that "slavery was good" without also exploring the ways in which Africa would be different, thus the experiment falls apart.

1:34 pm October 11, 2012

Dr. Rusty Nails wrote:

@Jean: Like I said, you didn't need to point out that you are a Democrat as it's expressly implied when you lead with an insult. And sorry I'm not a perfect human being.

You are right, 1997 isn't that long ago in absolute terms but it is when you are using data to support a theory. This just in: the German army just invaded the Soviet Union. Looks like we are going to war tomorrow. I mean, I know the data I used to form my conclusion is from 1941, but if you consider the earth is millions of years old, it's practically yesterday. Does it seem a little silly now? There is newer, more accurate data that totally conflicts with the conclusion you've drawn from your 20 year old data.

And it's exactly absurd to say that data from a few neighborhoods in a single city can be extrapolated and be applied to the entire United States...that is simply irresponsible. And don't blame this on the university, you are the one misusing their data. The process of research involves evaluating known evidence. If those researchers were presented with the federally collected research that I provided they might recant their conclusion unfortunately they can't do that because your study happened over 20 years ago!

And I'm not telling you what to believe, just providing some evidence and facts for you to draw your own conclusion(s). I'm sure the results of that study were accurate, for those neighborhoods in that one city, 20 years ago.

How is it you can claim that Sandusky's was only white-on-white crime when a large number of the victims have never been identified? Sandusky, is that you? And what are you saying about the boy scouts, that not a single boy scout or single scout leader is something other than white? I mean, I realize you are trying to make a point but you are stretching here. And I don't condone any of that behavior and find it appalling, regardless of skin color. Again your sample size is small...two news stories, from one day of the year doesn't change the statistics.

Sorry to hear about your time growing up in Minnesota.

As far as your 'white-on-white' crime article...I think any crime is worth addressing, not just racially specific crime and that's the greatest difference between the white community and the black community. The white community acknowledges the crime and the problem and seeks to remedy it. With the black community, it's often swept under the rug in an attempt to portray a narrative that is positive. That will never allow the problem to be fixed. As a wise man once said, "sunlight is the best disinfectant".

Also, just run through the list of crimes committed in that article. Most are 'known' at best, so how they can be labeled white-on-white is baffling. Kids shoot up a school? Only white kids go to that school? Man at a church starts shooting people? Only white people go to that church?

Thanks for taking the time to Google, copy and paste other people's thoughts. As I said before, the statistics are the statistics, ignore them if you want.

2:02 pm October 11, 2012

Dr. Rusty Nails wrote:

@Jen DC: I don't need to explain what she meant because you already know, you even mentioned it. If we could take your response to Jean and meld it with your previous responses to me and think about the following...

You say it's not race, it's poverty. If you look up the leading causes of poverty, it's lack of education, specifically graduation from high school. If you look up the statistics about high school graduation, you will find that children are less likely to graduate from high school if they come from single parent households, especially if they already live in poverty or their parent doesn't have a high school education.

The number, on average, of American children that are raised by a single parent? 1 out of 4, or 25%. Know what that number is in the black community? It's over 70%, actually 72% to be precise. The poverty that is endured by many black students is a result of mothers who got pregnant young, didn't finish school and who are unwed. All things the government can't possibly fix. In most cases, if that child had a dual income household, they wouldn't be in poverty and would statistically be much more likely to graduate from high school which, statistically speaking, keeps people above the poverty live...and, if they can go to college for even just two years, they can increase the distance between themselves and the poverty line by an even greater margin.

I think America has an issue with moral bankruptcy and this is all the more present in the black community than ever before. The point about intact families during slavery is absolutely true, this has been proven with statistics. After the implementation of social programs, ironically aimed at helping blacks succeed, you have a sustained rise in the number of unwed, single black mothers, which leads to children that are raised in poverty and left unsupervised...which leads to children getting in trouble and hanging out with the wrong element in the community...which leads to arrests and incarceration (hard to be a father to your child when you are locked up) which leads to a lessened ability to get a decent job in the future which increases the likelihood they are going to commit future crimes to 'make' money. This is a mix of science and basic logic.

And do some research. The destruction that's occurred in Africa has more to do with the de-colonization than the original colonization. If that wasn't the case, then how come there continues to be so many African nations in total disarray? South Africa is one of the few bright spots on the proverbial 'dark continent'.

Lastly, could you please let us know who ran the slave trade on the far side of the Atlantic? Was it the big, bad white man or was it really blacks selling 'inferior' blacks?

3:38 am October 12, 2012

Jean wrote:

@Nails, apparently you are in the habit of making assumptions. I said I am not a Republican. I did not say that I am a Democrat, so where does that leave your statement ". . . you didn’t need to point out that you are a Democrat as it’s expressly implied . . ." By the way, no one who know me would say that I am either a conservative or a liberal, yet yesterday you implied that you are communicating with a liberal. Similarly, no where in my statements did I say that I grew up in Minnesota. I didn't.

It appears that you habitually draw erroneous conclusions. Perhaps that is because you assume to be true whatever you wish to believe--which rather make you much like a dog endlessly chasing his tail.

As for you apparent inability to reason clearly, that is very likely the result of an undisciplined mind. For example, "the German army just invaded the Soviet Union" is a statement about an event in time, whereas stating that there is a positive correlation between poverty and certain types of crimes is not. If it is indeed true that poverty is a major contributing factor in the prevelance of crime, that would remain true and independent of the time factor. If I wanted to test that hypothesis, I would merely conduct such a study at different points in time--which undoubtedly has been done by others. Perhaps you would care to point us in the direction of the "newer, more accurate data that totally conflicts with the conclusion you’ve drawn from your 20 year old data."

"The process of research involves evaluating known evidence." It's quite obvious that you don't know what you are talking about or the first thing about research, so you are definitely not a scientist. So, are you a Republican?

You seem to be having a problem dealing with realities that you don't like. If a black man kills another black man and is subsequently sent to prison for that murder, that would be a black-on-black crime, right?
Does that mean that he has never killed a white man? Jerry Sandusky was prosecuted for molesting 10 boys, and only those 10 boys. He committed and was prosecuted for his white-on-white crimes.

Regarding the boy scouts, it is highly unlikely that any of the boys or any of the scout leaders would have been black. For one thing, the demographics alone would make that highly improbable. Face it. Any way you look at it, this is another example of white-on-white crime.

As for a willingness to address crimes, many black people would say that’s the greatest difference between the black community and the white community. The black community acknowledges the crime and the problem and seeks to remedy it. With the white community, it’s often swept under the rug in an attempt to portray a narrative that is positive.

There is a considerable amount of American history to rely upon for empirical knowledge about the relationship between poverty and crime. Poverty and crime didn't just fall out of the sky during the last few decades. They have been a part of the American landscape since the time the first settlers arrived. Many of the first settlers were criminals, or have you forgotten that. "It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century." Those criminals often became indentured servants, which means they were basically temporary slaves.

You have yet to substantiate anything you have said with any evidence or any facts. What you have are the bigoted beliefs of a woefully ignorant man.

4:07 pm October 15, 2012

Neil wrote:

Jen DC wrote that she didn't see any brown faces at the Republican Convention...... what exactly is that suppose to say? There were people of all races there and they were welcome and applauded when they spoke on stage. Does it not say more about "people of color" that they would not even consider a political party that would welcome their membership. I submit that they are one of a few things. They are racist and hate white people, they would like to become a member of the party that applauds excellence wherever it's found but are afraid of the reaction from the lemmings that populate the Democrat party, they buy into the promises that have been repeated by the Democrat Party for decades and think that maybe this time they will be telling the truth, they are lazy twats that believe the sales pitch by the Democrat Party that promises to take care of them from cradle to grave.

6:26 am October 16, 2012

Hispanics have a voice wrote:

There is a misconception that hispanics all vote demcrat... WRONG.... we are waking up to the hypocrisy in the demcratic party,majority of hispanics are very conservative I am 3rd generation republican we have always felt welcomed in this party, for instance most Cubans vote republican especially in this election they do not feel good with this President he has an agenda and they can smell SOCIALISM... all the way from the "WHITE HOUSE" any culture that has known suppression when goverment dictates ones freedom from being able to be their own voice and to live their own dreams.I personally hope that we do not move FORWARD.. With this Administration, but that people will "WAKE UP" and make the "RIGHT"choice for the sake of AMERICA!!!

7:01 am October 16, 2012

PLN wrote:

Stacey Dash, you are an amazing strong individual it had to take alot of strength to stand up for what you believe your convictions are more important then your popularity no one in their Left mind would have been able to speak out and take a stand for fear of loosing their career, but not you Stacey Dash your an example to us all. We all need to take a stand for something or we will fall for nothing. Do not let the evil that has attacked you from the democrat party change you, but convince you that you made the Right decision. God bless you...

6:59 am October 23, 2012

Jen DC wrote:

@ Neil: I've already provided my reasons re: Why there aren't more minorities in the Republican Party. It is entirely typical of you to turn to insults and rage about their apparent stupidity and laziness for choosing the Democratic Party to support. I reiterate: Minorities are not the greatest consumers of government assistance. I'll leave the argument at that and points previously made.

Nails, how are you feeling about the foreign policy of a man who can't identify our alleged most dangerous enemy on a map? Not feeling too good about it myself, but I was never planning to vote for Romney.

9:56 am October 27, 2012

enemy_of_the_statist wrote:

Jen DC I am a mixed-race conservative. Tell ya what. While you left-wing neanderthals go out and vote based on your racial sociopathy, your deviant sexuality, and your assertion of the right to commit mass-murder the rest of us adults are going to try and free the greatest nation in the history of mankind from the very illnesses you seek to propagate.

Frankly your effort to justify your strange attachment to unspeakable evil by citing statistics and alleging totally false charges of bigotry would be sickening if it weren't, in fact, just pathetically hilarious.

9:57 am October 27, 2012

enemy_of_the_statist wrote:

Jen DC I am a mixed-race conservative. Tell ya what. While you left-wing neanderthals go out and vote based on your racial and sexual sociopathies, the rest of us adults are going to try and free the greatest nation in the history of mankind from the very illnesses you seek to propagate.

Frankly your effort to justify your strange attachment to unspeakable evil by citing statistics and alleging totally false charges of bigotry would be sickening if it weren't, in fact, just pathetically hilarious.

5:52 pm October 28, 2012

NT wrote:

Obama – The UnEmployment President

Obama is a good man. But his economic policies have failed. Yes, we were in deep crisis when he took office four years ago. So what? He has not improved at all our nation’s job miseries. Obama has done well on non-economic issues. But that does not put food on the table for 23 million unemployed Americans. Worse, is YOUR job safe?

Anybody else will be a breath of fresh air. I voted for Obama in 2008. I am not making that mistake again.

1:22 pm December 4, 2012

Joel wrote:

@Jean Hi Jean, since you asked. My paternal grandfather is spaniard white. My paternal grandmother is black. My maternal grandfather is black, second descendent of a slave. My maternal grandmother is 1/2 white 1/2 indian. Somewhere along his branch, I believe my grandmother's mother, was a documented rape. So I guess you can say I am 50% black, 12.5 central american indian and 37.5 white. That makes me less white than Barrack Obama I guess

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Speakeasy

Speakeasy is a blog covering media, entertainment, celebrity and the arts. The publication is produced by Barbara Chai and Jonathan Welsh with contributions from the Wall Street Journal staff and others. Write to us at speakeasy@wsj.com or follow us on Twitter at @WSJSpeakeasy or individually @barbarachai.